Does Hunt 2.0 ranking algorithm take into account the individual performance of a hunter for that round?

Or is it just if you win or lose

It is just win or lose

Would it be more accurate if they based it on individual performance (eg. Damage dealt, successful domes etc.) on top of a team win or loss.
I’d see this especially beneficial for Pub games as you can’t rely on total randoms half the time.

1 Like

It could be more accurate but it could also be bad for overall gameplay. Currently, you are supposed to do anything to win, whatever gives you the best chance. If you start weighting individual performances, people will start to favor the things that give them more points even if it isn’t what is best for the team. COULD be bad. I prefer the win/lose method because of this. We have enough people running around trying to get masteries.


We’d just substitute people feeling hard done by because they’d done well but lost and lost points, with people feeling hard done by because they would have done well, but their team meant that they weren’t able to put in a good individual performance, maybe because their team mates were too focused on generating the conditions that would gain them points, and so win or lose they didn’t achieve what they feel they deserved.

Either way people are going to be salty because they feel they deserved better from the result.

1 Like

This would still result in teams blaming other members for their lack of skill without them taking into regard their own performance.

Then you’d have to figure how to determine the success of each Hunter and their class (eg does 15K damage on Assault’s minigun equal the same amount of points as 4 domes? 6? 30 harpoons?)

This could be abused pretty hard though. For example, on PS4 crows stasis gun average is 1 (it’s bugged). I could get a score of like 70 during a match and get sooooooo many points.

The system accounting for individual performance would be 100x better in my opinion but much harder to setup.

TRS went the easier route. As I personally don’t know how hard it is to make the system based on individual stats… maybe it was impossible. I hope they at least considered it long and hard, because the current system is meaningless for PUG players who rely on strangers for their teammates.

1 Like

I’m sure they could average out the points amongst the abilities and weapons so that they can’t be abused.

@M_A_D they wouldn’t get a break down of other team members stats for the round. That’d be chaos.

@niaccurshi @Shepard @aboatman

The Devs are looking at incorporating individual performance into the ranking algorithm. It would certainly make the ranking system more complicated, but done correctly it would encourage players to improve their individual performance and possibly even give feedback. It also doesn’t have to be really nuanced.

Here’s a possible scenario:

A group of Bronze Destroyer Hunters lose a match to a Bronze Elite Monster mainly due to having a new medic player that didn’t heal. First the algorithm works as always and compares the expected result with the actual result and determines the points/penalty for each player. Only when the Hunters lose will an individual adjustment formula kick in. The first step would be to assess each player’s performance based on their class using 1 or 2 key metrics that compare a Hunter’s performance to the average and then rates them as good, poor, or average (average would equal within one standard deviation of the overall average for that metric while good and bad would fall on either side of that range). Players who have an ‘average’ rating will see no adjustment while good and poor Hunters will have their penalties adjusted with a multiplier added that would penalize frequent poor performances and reward frequent good performances. In this case the Medic would receive a penalty adjustment for their ‘poor’ performance and if that player had a history of frequent losses with ‘poor’ performance ratings the multiplier would dramatically increase the penalty. Players who consistently play poorly in a certain rank will quickly drop down to lower ranks until their performance rating and win/loss record improve and stabilize their rank. The same process would accelerate consistently ‘good’ players into a higher ranks until they were stable as well.

Possible metrics for different classes: Class metrics should be percentages that reflect a players skill and are not heavily influenced by other variables. Assault could be rated on hit percentage (accuracy) and the percentage of total monster damage compared to the other Hunters; Support could be rated on a ratio of the player’s damage to the monster versus total monster damage to the Hunters; Trapper could be rated on percentage of the match the Monster was effected by CC, and percentage of damage done to the Monster; Medic could be rated on the ratio of healing versus total damage done to the hunters by wildlife and the Monster and the percentage of damage done to the Monster.

This is just a bare bones outline of one potential modification to the ranking system that would bring individual Hunter performance into the system. It would not be perfect, but would likely work well enough to get the Hunter’s rank distribution to a better place.

1 Like

I feel that it is too complicated to include individual performance. I’d prefer they started only with protecting higher ranked hunters in random teams with lower ranks from getting penalised so heavily. I feel that would do enough to appease people

1 Like

Kinda sucks because i won a game the other night where we started with a bot and by the end I was the only one left on the hunter team, frantically hotswapping.

Do you mean ranks or levels?

Right now somewhere around 80% - 85% of the Hunters (on PC) are in 3 ranks: Bronze Elite, Bronze Destroyer, and Silver Skilled. It is virtually impossible for a Hunter to fall below the rank of Bronze Master, and most players have a floor of Bronze Elite. If you are a Silver Hunter playing with 3 Bronze Destroyers the system already adjusts the win award and loss penalty based on the team’s rank make up. Penalizing the Silver player less would do nothing to spread the Hunters out from the top 2 Bronze ranks.

There are certainly other options, and I am confident TRS is exploring the options that seem to offer the best cost to benefit ratios first.

But that is what I mean, simple rewards and lack of reductions that take in to account better the disparity and randomness of the hunter group. I also feel trs should boost people’s current points based on their time in game, or previous leaderboards rank, or something.

1 Like

Macman also mentioned they were looking at those other options you mentioned as well.

What your asking for sounds more like a handicapping system, which Macman has said they are also discussing. Handicapping could help some with rank distribution, but would really help more with match making by preventing Monster/Hunter Rank disparities from increasing wait times, while preventing either side from playing one sided matches that aren’t fun. Personally I think a good handicap system and integration of individual performance into Hunter rankings will both be implemented. Individual performance integration would solve the current Hunter distribution problem if you had a system that worked reasonably well. Keep in mind the current ranking system is not simple, so just because individual performance would be complicated may not really matter. The implementation of an asymmetrical PvP game like Evolve is pretty complicated already. You may need a complicated solution to the Hunter rank distribution. Simpler is almost always better, but in this case simple is a relative term.

1 Like

Oh yeah I would love to have a system like this in place. I’m just saying they would have to fix some ranking bugs first.

1 Like